Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Vendtech-SGI, LLC Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
vendtechsgi-llc
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Vendtech-SGI, LLC

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Jul 8, 2025

Vendtech-SGI, LLC vs. David Benham and Division of Employment Security

Appellant

Vendtech-SGI, LLC appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to award David Benham unemployment benefits. Benham was discharged for allegedly conducting an unauthorized investigation and gossiping about a coworker's nude photograph. The Commission found that Vendtech did not meet its burden to prove misconduct, crediting Benham's testimony that he was merely verifying information before reporting it to supervisors and that his job duties were unclear. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding it supported by competent and substantial evidence.